Supervision Case Planning and Management

Assessment–Driven Case Planning

The effective supervision of sex offenders is contingent upon the timely development
and implementation of individualized case plans that are responsive to their
differing risk levels, diverse needs, and circumstances. Research has established
that better outcomes are achieved when the intensity of interventions is matched
to offenders based on assessed level of risk (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta,
2007). Specifically, prioritizing higher risk adult and juvenile offenders
for higher intensity supervision will likely have a greater impact on reducing
recidivism than providing that same level of supervision to their lower risk
counterparts. In fact, delivering intensive interventions to lower risk offenders
has limited to no impact and, in some cases, may actually result in increased
rates of recidivism (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Cullen & Gendreau,
2000; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, & Andrews, 2001).

Although the initial research supporting the differential approaches based
upon assessed level of risk involved “general” offenders, a growing
body of evidence suggests that it is also applicable to sex offenders (Friendship,
Mann, & Beech, 2003; Gordon & Nicholaichuk, 1996; Hanson, 2006; Mailloux
et al., 2003). This has significant implications for sex offender supervision.
Therefore, a critical goal of the initial supervision case planning process
is to identify the risk posed by adult and juvenile sex offenders so that supervision
levels can be matched accordingly. This also helps to ensure that supervision
agencies maximize the impact of their limited resources.

Agency policies and procedures should require the inclusion of a formal risk
assessment in the development of all sex offender supervision case plans. Ideally,
for adult sex offenders, one or more empirically–validated sex offender–specific
risk assessment tools should be used. Examples include the Rapid Risk Assessment
for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR; Hanson, 1997) and the STATIC–99
(Hanson &
Thornton, 1999). With youthful sex offenders, officers or case managers can
administer the Juvenile Sex Offender assessment Protocol–II (J–SOAP–II;
Prentky & Righthand, 2003) as a means of identifying those youth who may
require more intensive supervision based on level of risk. In some instances,
these instruments may have been administered by others and, as such, their
results (assuming that they are current) can be simply integrated into the
supervision case plan.

A critical goal of the initial supervision case planning
process is to identify the risk posed by adult and juvenile sex offenders so
that supervision levels can be matched accordingly.

There are a number of other important written sources of data that can be
particularly helpful during the initial supervision case planning process.
Pre–sentence investigations or pre–disposition reports and psychosexual
evaluations often provide helpful information about sex offenders’ needs
and circumstances that guide the creation of the supervision case plan. (See
the Assessment section of this protocol for a detailed description of the pre–sentence
investigation or pre–disposition report, and the psychosexual evaluation.)

The involvement of and input from collaterals are also key in the creation
of responsive and individualized supervision plans. Family members, members
of the faith community, mentors, and other significant others in the lives
of offenders can provide important insights into key issues that are likely
to be related to community stability and should be addressed in supervision
case plans. Examples of these critical considerations include daily activities,
employment difficulties, concerns with peers and associates, family problems,
and transportation needs (see, e.g., Cumming & McGrath, 2005). For juvenile
sex offenders in particular, supervision plans should include a strong emphasis
on the parent/family, peer, school, and environmental factors that contemporary
research indicates are associated with general juvenile delinquency (see, e.g.,
Hunter, 2006; Hunter, Figueredo, Malamuth, & Becker, 2004). Furthermore,
while policies and procedures should ensure that supervision plans for youthful
sex offenders comprehensively address the multiple domains that may be associated
with their risk to reoffend, it is also critically important that plans identify
strengths of the juveniles and their families, and outline strategies to build
upon these.

Supervision plans should also be generated with active and explicit consideration
of victim safety needs. Indeed, policies and procedures should identify victim–impact
statements and input solicited directly from victim advocates as important
information sources to be utilized in supervision case planning (Barbaree & Cortoni,
1993; CSOM, 2000; D’Amora & Burns–Smith, 1999; Jones, et al.,
1996; NAPN, 1993). With juvenile sex offenders, ensuring victim protection
and sensitivity may be especially challenging—when developing supervision
plans, as many victims of juveniles are in the family or home environment.

Sex offenders themselves are also essential stakeholders in the case planning
process. Their active involvement promotes investment and ownership, and ensures
that they are fully aware of and clearly understand the imposed expectations
and restrictions (Cumming & McGrath, 2000, 2005; Gray & Pithers, 1993;
NAPN, 1993). When creating supervision plans for juvenile sex offenders, it
is important that officers or case managers also recognize parents or caregivers
and other family members as “experts” in their families, and include
their perspectives in the development of case plans (Gray & Pithers, 1993;
Jenkins, 1998; Longo & Prescott, 2006; Ryan, 1997b; Worling, 1998).

Assessment–Driven Case Management

In addition to establishing risk levels and providing guidance about the intensity
of supervision at the outset of the process, assessments are important in identifying
specific supervision targets—the dynamic risk factors that are present
and require attention in the case plan and must be monitored by officers or
case managers over time. As discussed in other sections of this protocol, there
are a number of promising research–supported assessment measures that
can be used by officers for this purpose, and that should be included in supervision
policies and procedures. For example, the Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) is helpful with adult
offenders for determining “general” recidivism risk and identifying
criminogenic needs to be targeted through supervision and other interventions.
The parallel version for juveniles is the Youth Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 1997), which is widely used for assessing
general risk and developing individualized supervision plans among justice–involved
youth. It should be noted that neither the LS/CMI nor the YLS/CMI is a sex
offender–specific instrument. However, these tools are very instructive
nonetheless because they can provide a broad foundation for case management
plans, particularly in light of the research that demonstrates that when adult
and juvenile sex offenders recidivate, their crimes are more likely to be non–sexual
in nature (see, e.g., Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003; Waite et al., 2005;
Worling & Curwen, 2000).

There are two types of dynamic risk factors that are related to sexual recidivism:
acute and stable (Hanson & Harris, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Hanson & Morton–Bourgon,
2005). Acute dynamic risk factors are elements that change rapidly and have
been found to differentiate sex offenders who recidivate sexually from those
who do not. They include (Hanson & Harris, 2000a, 2000b, 2001):

Disengagement from supervision;

Demonstration of deceitful or manipulative behaviors;

Consistent tardiness or failure to attend scheduled appointments;

Overall non–cooperativeness and noncompliance; and

Opportunities for victim access.

These acute dynamic risk factors have significant implications for supervision
officers, in that close and continuous monitoring should occur in order to
identify their presence (Cumming & McGrath, 2005; Hanson & Harris,
2000a, 2000b, 2001). Once identified, supervision officers must be poised to
provide timely and effective responses to reduce the short–term risk
of reoffending (Cumming & McGrath, 2005; Hanson & Harris, 2000a, 2000b,
2001).

Stable dynamic factors are more enduring in nature, and are associated with
longer–term sexual recidivism risk. While they may not be specific targets
of the day–to–day work of supervision officers, they are, nonetheless,
critically important in the sex offender management process. They include (Hanson & Harris,
2000a, 2000b, 2001; Hanson and Morton–Bourgon, 2005):

Substance abuse;

Intimacy deficits and conflicts in intimate relationships;

Antisocial or otherwise negative lifestyle factors;

Attitudes tolerant of sex offending;

Problems with sexual self–regulation;

Problems with general self–regulation; and

Poor overall appearance.

These elements are generally addressed in treatment. Supervision officers
are ideally poised to assist treatment providers to monitor them and to reinforce
the important work done to address them in the clinical setting.

To assess the dynamic risk factors specifically relevant to ongoing supervision
strategies with adult sex offenders, the Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating
(SONAR)—subsequently separated into the STABLE–2000 and ACUTE2000—is
a very promising tool (Hanson & Harris, 2000a, 2000b, 2001). It was designed
for supervision officers as a means of providing structure and focus for their
monitoring efforts (Hanson & Harris, 2000a, 2000b, 2001). In addition,
the Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (McGrath & Cumming,
2003) can assist supervision officers with identifying dynamic risk factors
that will need to be addressed in initial supervision plans and establishing
baseline levels of risk and needs against which changes can be gauged over
time. Both tools are designed to be re–administered at regular intervals,
so that increases or decreases in risk level and changes in needs can be identified,
and appropriate responses and interventions can be implemented by officers.

In addition to utilizing research–supported assessment
instruments to guide supervision practices and the ongoing case management
process, information from other sources is essential.

The empirical research on dynamic risk factors with juvenile sex offenders
is somewhat limited. However, a considerable body of literature exists on the
prediction of non–sexual offending among juveniles, which may be useful
for identifying areas of intervention for juvenile sex offenders who are under
supervision. Among the strongest predictors of juvenile delinquency and youth
violence are substance abuse, aggressive behavior, lack of social ties, antisocial
peers, negative attitudes about school, poor academic performance, and negative
parent–child relationships (Hawkins, et al., 1998; Lipsey & Derzon,
1998). These elements—in combination with those that are believed to
be important considerations in the context of sexual recidivism (e.g., social
competency deficits, antisocial values and behaviors, deviant sexual interests,
impulsivity, non–compliance with treatment)—may hold particular
promise as targets of supervision for juvenile sex offenders (Worling & Langstrom,
2006).

For sexually abusive youth, the J–SOAP–II can be used by supervision
officers or case managers to monitor changes in risk level over time and to
adjust supervision intensities and strategies accordingly (Prentky & Righthand,
2003). There are four subscales on this instrument, two of which include dynamic
risk factors that are particularly relevant to supervision officers and case
managers (Prentky & Righthand, 2003). Another promising instrument for
youth is the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths–Sexual Development
Scale (CANS–SD; Lyons, 2001). This needs assessment instrument guides
supervision officers or case managers through a comprehensive exploration of
a wide range of variables across a number of important domains (e.g., risk
behaviors, school functioning, supervision and monitoring needs, caregiver
capacity, family functioning), all of which are important considerations when
supervising juvenile sex offenders. One of the benefits of the CANS–SD
is that it provides a structured and consistent method for officers or case
managers to assess the strengths and assets of youth and their family members.

Both the J–SOAP–II and the CANS–SD are intended to be used
at regular intervals so that the efforts of officers or case managers are responsive
to the risk level, unique needs, and circumstances of each case.

In addition to utilizing research–supported assessment instruments to
guide supervision practices and the ongoing case management process, information
from other sources is essential. It is, therefore, critical that agency policies
and procedures define the stakeholders from different agencies and disciplines
whose perspectives are important in the ongoing case management process. Individuals
who over time can offer particularly valuable insights into the adjustment
and stability of adult and juvenile sex offenders include professionals such
as treatment providers and victim advocates, as well as members of community
support networks. Input from these parties should inform the supervision plan
and the strategies that supervision officers and case managers employ on a
daily basis to manage the risk that adult and juvenile sex offenders pose,
and to support their participation in programming and services.

Specialized Conditions of Supervision

Standard conditions and restrictions of supervision (e.g., scheduled office
visits, school attendance for juveniles, curfews, prohibitions against associating
with negative peers or associates) are necessary but not sufficient to monitor
and intervene effectively with the critical areas of risk that are unique to
adult and juvenile sex offenders (Bumby & Talbot, 2007; CSOM, 2000, 2002a,
2002b; Cumming & McGrath, 2000, 2005; English et al., 1996, 2003; Heinz & Ryan,
1997; Scott, 1997). Therefore, specialized conditions of supervision have become
commonplace in many jurisdictions. Agency policies and procedures should support
the selective application of specialized conditions such as:

With juvenile sex offenders, additional conditions may be warranted, including
those that address extracurricular activities, and television programming and
video games with violent or sexual themes. Family participation in treatment
and supervision is also likely to be an important expectation (Barbaree & Cortoni,
1993; Bumby & Talbot, 2007; Heinz & Ryan, 1997; Longo & Prescott,
2006).

Because sex offenders are diverse and “one size fits all” approaches
to supervision may not be effective, application of specialized supervision
conditions should reflect the varying levels of risk posed—and the dynamic
risk factors that are presented—by each offender. This will help to ensure
that resources are maximized and supervision interventions are more likely
to reduce recidivism.

The development and application of specialized supervision
conditions should reflect the varying levels of risk posed—and the dynamic
risk factors that are presented—by each offender.

When selectively applying conditions, it is necessary for supervision officers
and case managers to think beyond prohibitions and placing restrictions on
the behavior and activities of sex offenders. It is also important for officers
to remember the importance of balancing surveillance and monitoring activities
with a focus on treatment. Consistent with the rehabilitation–oriented
approach to supervision, case plans should identify positive goals and activities
that sex offenders can work towards and that will increase the likelihood that
they will live fulfilling and positive lives in the community. Referred to
as “approach goals” (see, e.g., Hunter & Longo, 2004; Mann,
Webster, Schofield, & Marshall, 2004; Thakker, Ward, & Tidmarsh, 2006),
examples include participating in pro–social leisure activities, achieving
and maintaining positive school adjustment (for juveniles), establishing pro–social
peers or associates, and gaining and maintaining appropriate employment. These
goals are vital because their achievement increases adult and juvenile sex
offenders’ stability in the community, enhances the likelihood that their
needs can be met in constructive ways (and not at the expense of others), reduces
the likelihood that they engage in inappropriate or risky behaviors, and ultimately
enhances community safety.